Educating the Educators

The aims of education are social, historical, ephemeral and changing like any other
matter of policy; they are contextualized, political, normative, dynamic and challenged
(Harris, 2002).
This articulation demonstrates education, in its countless manifestations, as an evolving
entity, comprising complex relationships between knowledge, people and cultures. Take
for example, this metacognitive moment in time. I am sitting here writing this paper,
unquestionably embedded within an educational context. This very introduction is being
read by those who communicate and assess knowledge deemed important or relevant
enough to incorporate into a masters degree at an Australian academic institution; but
why? In this case at least, the information gathered, synthesised and presented here is a
product of considered priority for my chosen profession. Education, it can be argued,
follows this notion; placing value upon desired skills and dispositions, and (ideally)
facilitating its propagation into the society from which it emanates. However of course,
education extends beyond a singular domain. So is this unit preparing me as a human, or
preparing me as a teacher and what are the ethical responsibilities of me as the latter?
These are fundamental questions which I will address in the ensuing paragraphs. I will
begin however, with this one sentence; education is about all of those things.
As a prospective primary school teacher I propose that, due to factors including
cognitive development and social interaction, the former proposition, emanating from
the liberal viewpoint, must assume the inherent front seat in the education landscape.
Significant to introducing these ideas is the recognition of, and catering to, a developing
organism: the student. Piaget (1965), among other developmental psychologists, outlined
that, whether continuous or stage-like, cognitive and social development is ever present,

and is consequently an enduring determinant of pedagogy. Subsequently, the teacher

possesses undeniable influence upon a students life and, due to the formative nature of
these years, the emphasis of education should maintain developing the individual in
providing a dynamic foundation for the future. Perhaps then it could be argued that
teachers are continually guided in their work by conceptions of what an educated
growing person is like (Hansen, 2001). Such interpretations however do not imply a full
endorsement of traditional liberal education perspectives, as according to Pring (2004),
the traditional liberal view in focusing upon the world of ideas, has ignored the world
of practice - the world of industry, of commerce, of earning a living. Admittedly, this
hard-line, blanket philosophy fails recognise the practical nature of the current world,
and without adjustment, lags behind contemporary reality. To adopt Baileys (2010)
suggestion of the more moderate individualist, (my closest observation of education) is
that the primary level provides young children with basic skills, in line with the
individual childs aptitudes and interests in preparing them to safely and
independently function in the world. More relevant to the vocational approach however,
is secondary tier education, in the enabling the fruition of practical skills, whilst tertiary
education oversees a development of advanced skills.
The vocational, or community approach to education emphasises the role of
specialised, practical education in fulfilling roles deemed intrinsic to an economic
society (Pring, 2004). In many contemporary cultures, where complex economic
structures sit alongside government, the need for this approach may be justified through
pure necessity alone. After all, it is difficult to jump off a rocket mid-flight. Furthermore,
who is to say that without the influence of vocational philosophies, particularly within
tertiary education, I would be here today, writing this paper? Admittedly, selecting this

particular profession was in part induced by potential remuneration, thus authenticating

the vocational ideology. Is it contradictory of me in deciding such a path, if my
philosophical allegiances more closely align with the liberal? Possibly, however would
this contradiction have come to realisation at all had I not been liberated in choosing to
do so? These questions, although valid, seem to lack a practical focus.
Whilst researching the purpose of education, a vast spectrum of educational
philosophies was apparent. This realisation demonstrated to me that there is no
universal, one-size-fits-all theory regarding the purpose of education. Perhaps that in
itself is testament to the richness of the planet on which we reside. The reality is that any
society must surely benefit from full expression of the human form; those liberated to
challenge and transform ideas and those whose more tangible provisions within society
enable such ideas to flourish. If we, as educators, support each student in any such ways
to facilitate their individual development by using the most constructive methodology
available, then that is surely a commendable start. Although this raises the question of
how does one know what the most constructive methodology is, or indeed which
content is most important for children to be taught? The practical gauge of
contemporary education in Australia can be found in one place: the curriculum. In his
analysis of Bailey, Tillson (2011) proposes if one was to risk an answer to what could
go on the curriculum, it might be this: the intention behind education fundamentally
ought, quite simply, to be an intention to make a (positive) difference to those being
educated. On balance, the current curriculum addresses the reality of a vocational
climate. Philosophical genres, such as Hands (Bailey, 2010) proposition of a religious
component to curriculum, although sensitive towards facilitating expansive thought,
doesnt aptly reconcile disagreement between religions and is left somewhat

floundering. Even in sight of any philosophical gain, is the unique nature of religion
wholly, insofar that is not just that religions differ, it is that they differ in fundamental
ways (Barnes, 2008). Pertinent to this discussion, Bailey (2010), in evaluating rival
conceptions of indoctrination, challenges the notion that indoctrination is unavoidable
since we must impart some beliefs to children without justifying these to them. My
standpoint follows Bailey in agreeing that children often are not capable of
understanding the reasons which justify the beliefs which adults impart. However, as
Bailey also contends, as long as there are reasons which warrant the relevant beliefs,
imparting those beliefs does not necessarily count as indoctrination. Pivotally, Tillson
(2011) adds that an explicit antecedent condition should include that the educator
knows the reasons which warrant the relevant beliefs. This notion highlights the
underlying need for highly cognizant teachers, possessing the capacity for complex
thought schemas; an idea to be elaborated in succeeding paragraphs.
The cynic in me offers that such preeminent education, for the moment at least, is
unfeasible considering the current extrinsic value of teachers in Australian society;
reflected in tertiary entrance requirements and average wage (Webster et al, 2006). To
improve harmony of opposing ideals demands levels of proficiency and dedication to
teaching as a discipline of the highest order. Such change would require a paradigm shift
in the perception of education; towards increasing both respect and confidence to what
must first be recognised as a most noble profession. Pivotal to any discussion about
education is that it, like the world in which it occurs, is changing. This notion to me,
confirms that education, in whatever form it may assume, must adapt accordingly. This
need for plasticity is highlighted in the many arguments amongst theorists pertaining to
the liberal perspective, involving to what extent social usefulness should temper the

pursuit of intellectual excellence (Bailey, 2010) and the degree to which the ideal of
liberal education needs constantly to be renewed, as new knowledge, and new
organisations of knowledge, transform our ideas of social usefulness'.
Discussion of Australian teaching is often politically committed to
transparency of schooling outcomes and the improvement and standardisation of
teaching quality, and the raising of (measurable) schooling outcomes for social justice in
areas of disadvantage including indigenous education and low socioeconomic areas
(Lingard, 2010). This notion grants educators an interpretive lens which prescribes
priorities in the field and has been argued to have a marked impact on the ethical
subjectivity of teachers professional practice (Kostogriz & Doecke, 2011). This impact
implicates ethical dilemmas into each teaching day; that is, situations in which it seems
possible to give a reasonable argument for more than one course of action (Strike, 1988).
Thus careful thought must preside over teachers choices and engagement in moral
reasoning. With this common engagement, educators must fully appreciate their
influence upon students and temper these influences in ways considered to be ethically
sound. But how is this achieved? Common to an ethical approach is the assumption
that teachers, as moral agents who hold a position of power in relation to their students,
are expected to critically reflect upon their practices and analyse their moral and political
implications (Valli, 1990). According to Strike (1988), generally questions of values turn
on our choices: what we like, what we deem to be worth liking. But there is nothing
obligatory about values. On the other hand, because ethics concern what we ought to do,
our ethical obligations are often independent of what we want or choose (Strike, 1988).
But how does one know what we ought to do? It is well recognised that certain ethical
dilemmas and tensions characterise the work of teachers (Boon, 2011). Many of these

centre around relational issues to do with limits to student-teacher intimacy, balancing

concern for the individual with group needs, the forces of school policy on autonomous
or case-based judgement, collegial loyalty and more generally, the ethics of pedagogy
(Aultman et al, 2009). Teaching is full of such dilemmas and thus teachers need to know
something about ethical reasoning. Such reasoning involves applying principles to cases
and judging the adequacy or applicability of the principles (Strike, 1988). Managing
such dilemmas within contemporary education contexts is, by design, to be directed by
ever present documentation, whether through the national curriculum or various
professional frameworks such as The National Professional Standards for Teachers
(AITSL, 2011), and more locally, the Tasmanian Code of Ethics for Teachers. Such
outlines provide a significant compass towards ethical development, with the AITSL
resource aimed at promoting effective teachers as a source of inspiration and, equally
importantly, a dependable and consistent influence on young people as they make
choices about further education, work and life. Ultimately however, there is one
individual whose role it is to understand, uphold and reflect these values: the teacher.
Due to this essential role, sound practice of ethics through modelling becomes critical
(Penn, 1990). People may speak virtuously, however how many follow their words with
actions? Hence it is the role of educator to ensure alignment of theory and practice in
exemplifying these outlined virtues by tempering methodology accordingly. Of course
this is not to say every action must be profoundly ethical, however such moderation
must be consistently part of the consciousness of educators. Such demands should be
seen as prerequisites of the modern educator, and if so, will coincide with the paradigm
shift in education.

For the sake of balance, I will conclude from the metacognitive perspective by
admitting that production of the preceding passage has facilitated me in better
understanding the aims of education and the ethical responsibilities assumed as a
prospective teacher. For all the discussion, it is ultimately the individuals responsibility
in sourcing, synthesising and adopting the most relevant of ethical standards. If we, the
educators, follow such actions to elevate this standard, then the shift has already begun.

References

Aultman, L., Williams-Johnson, M., & Schutz, P. (2009). Boundary dilemmas in

teacherstudent relationships: Struggling with the line. Teaching and
Teacher Education, No. 25, pp. 636-646.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian professional
standards for teachers. Accessed on 27/3/2015 from
http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/apstresources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf

Bailey, R. (Ed.). (2014). The philosophy of education: an introduction. Bloomsbury

Publishing.

Barnes, L. (2008). Michael hand, is religious education possible? Studies in Philosophy

and Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 63-70.

Boon, H. (2011). Raising the Bar: ethics Education for quality teachers. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 76-93.

Hansen, M. (2001). Education and economic rewards. Variations by socialclass origin

and income measures. European Sociological Review, 17(3), 209-231.

Hargreaves, D. (1980). A sociological critique of individualism in education. British

Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 187-198.

Harris, A. 2002. Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School

Leadership and Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 15-26.

Kostogriz, A., & Doecke, B. (2011). Standards-based accountability: reification,

responsibility and the ethical subject. Teaching education, Vol. 22, No.4, pp.
397-412.

Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australian

schooling. Critical Studies in Education, Vol. 51, No. 2, 129-147.

Penn, W. (1990). Teaching ethics a direct approach. Journal of Moral Education, Vol.
19, No. 2, pp. 124-138.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.

Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of educational research. (2nd ed.) London Continuum.

Strike, K. (1988). The Ethics of teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 70, No. 2 pp. 156158.

Tillson, J. (2011). Introduction to philosophy: a review. Bajo Palabra Journal of

Philosophy No.6, pp. 185-190.

Valli, L. (1992). Reflective teacher education: cases and critiques. Suny Press.

Webster, E., Wooden, M., & Marks, G. (2006). Reforming the labour market for
Australian teachers. Australian journal of education, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 185202.